|
STATUTORY DECLARATION MAY 1997 |
|
HOME | CASE STUDIES | LAW | NEWS | POLITICS | RIGHTS | SCANDAL | SITE INDEX | WHISTLEBLOWING |
|
|
|
STATUTORY DECLARATION I Nelson J Kruschandl, of
Oakwood, Lime Park Herstmonceux in the County of East Sussex, do
solemnly and sincerely declare as follows
:- 1.
That I moved into a run down barn like building in Lime Park in
or about April of 1982 by agreement with Mr N F Askaroff.
I named this building The Barnhouse, which name was changed to
Oakwood a number of years later. 2.
Mr Askaroff rented the building to me during this time because he
had agreed to sell the property to me and he was not yet in a position
to do so. Also, we had not yet instructed solicitors as to the transfer. 3.
From the date of first occupation I used the buildings as my
home. I also used part of
the building as an office and other parts as workshops. 4.
I am an inventor and design engineer.
I have worked mainly on vehicle improvements and I now hold
patents for electrically powered vehicles which refuel instantly. These intellectual developments have all been completed at
Oakwood, without which I could not have begun my work. 5.
By June and July of 1982 I had a telephone installed and
electricity billed directly. This,
together with Affidavits from persons recalling events and
correspondence from the solicitors handling the property transfer, is my
proof of first occupation. 6.
During September 1982 and April 1986 I received numerous visits
from Wealden District Council officers concerning Tree Preservation,
Industrial Usage and Residential Accommodation culminating in personal
service of an Enforcement Notice (EN) dated 18th April 1986.
The notice came with an Ordnance Survey based plan showing two
buildings, one large and one small.
The notice was for me to cease use of these two buildings shown
for residential purposes. 7.
The large building on the EN plan, coloured in red, consisted of
workshops, an office and a living area.
The small building coloured in blue was referred to as a
garden tool store. There
is no building shown where the garden tool store was shown.
In fact the position indicated was a coal bunker long since
demolished. The garden tool
store is west on the plan some 10 feet away. 8.
I appealed against the notice and continued to live where I had
been living, in an air raid shelter, a conservatory and an underground
room, east on the plan. None
of these buildings were shown on the plan or described in the schedule
of the EN. No other EN has
been served. The onus is on
the local authority to accurately define and unambiguously identify the
use complained of, which they have so far failed to do.
In planning terms the development is invisible. 9.
The appeal to the DOE on the building served with the EN was
refused in 1987. The
buildings I was using for residential purposes were not affected by the
EN. Accordingly, this did not affect my accommodation.
The DOE Inspector mistakenly confused the air raid shelter for
the coal bunker on the plan. However,
under the 1972 and 1990 T&CP Acts as amended, an Inspector does not
have the power to extend and enforcement notice or make correction(s) so
as to cause an injustice. Wealden
had in effect served a defective notice. 10.
In 1987 Wealden
prosecuted me for breach of an enforcement notice.
On appeal in the Crown Court at Lewes, case number 887111, the
Judge upheld my argument that the buildings I had continued to use for
residential accommodation were not included in the EN.
Victorio Patrick Scarpa (now head legal services) handled the
matter for Wealden. 11.
According to the
four year rule, those buildings were now immune from any form of
enforcement action. They
had been lived in for more than four years and any form of enforcement
action thereafter would be unlawful. 12.
In June of 1995
Wealden sought injunctive relief in the High Court in London against
those buildings now immune. Christine
Jennifer Nuttall (Wealden solicitor under V P Scarpa) provided
information by way of a sworn affidavit.
This information included a copy of the EN plan numbered 1243
which area of cover became much enlarged over the original.
13.
Mrs Nuttall achieved this deception by two means.
1. smudging the main building area and encircling it with ink,
and 2. contrary to normal rules of evidence, another plan was included
which was not the original EN plan, but contained an inset enlargement
showing detail of the main building and the underground chamber.
The detailed area coincidentally matched the newly smudged plan. 14.
The second plan bore
an enforcement reference number suggesting a link to the original plan.
The second plan also omitted the air raid shelter and the
conservatory. There is
no consistency in the evidence put forward by Wealden.
The detailed plan leaves out information of buildings immune from
enforcement. These were the
buildings in use. Not those
covered by the EN. 15.
A later plan
numbered 1458 was used for the appeal against the EN plan 1243.
An appeal plan must always be the same as the original EN plan
for a DOE Inspector. Yet
the later plan 1458 prepared by Wealden for the appeal in 1987 has much
smaller area cover. In fact
it is the same as the original EN plan before tampering by the legal
department and portrayed by Christine Nuttall in the High Court as true
copies. 16.
It is plain to me
that Christine Nuttall perjured herself in order to obtain the
injunction. It is clear that where there was a need for great accuracy
and careful description she deliberately altered the evidence to suit
her purposes and to mislead Justice Previte into granting an unjust
injunction. 17.
For some time I was
shocked by the methods employed by Wealden in these proceedings.
A simple planning matter now dealt with by Crown and High Courts
at considerable expense to the nation.
Recently I have been introduced to a number of other persons in
the Wealden area. Each of
these persons have had dealings with the planning and legal departments
at Wealden. In most of
these cases Wealden have been found guilty of MALADMINISTRATION by the
Ombudsman. Details of these other cases can be found on the Internet
http:/ourworld/homepage/C_Hudson2. 18.
It must now be asked
- how can it be that Wealdens administration can regularly tamper
with evidence, swear untruths and cause untold misery to so many people
and get away with it. The
answer is that there is no proper controlling body to investigate.
The Ombudsman looks at each case in isolation and merely slaps
Wealden on the wrist for these offences. Any other body or person would
be fined and the perpetrators jailed or struck off or both. 19.
In addition to
their, possibly, criminal misinterpretation and application of planning
law, Wealden District Council are infringing my basic human rights. 20.
Every person is
guaranteed the right to life and liberty under the European Convention
of Human Rights. I have
lived at Oakwood for 13 years and worked here for 15 years.
My right to be close to my work was taken away unlawfully in 1995
by the injunction based on the tampered and incomplete evidence of
Christine Nuttall in June 1995. 21.
I lived in a caravan
parked at Oakwood from 1995 to 1996 in order to continue my work and now
this too has been taken away under the threat of Committal proceedings
in the High Court, which I have endured three times. 22.
I could lose my
liberty if I choose to keep working.
Wealden are now saying that I am not entitled to a toilet and
canteen facilities at my workshops and office.
They are actively seeking removal at this time.
In effect, Wealden are also saying that I am not entitled to
expand my enterprise by the 25% allowed under the General Development
Order. This must be interpreted as nothing short of a MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION, which is of itself a criminal MISUSE OF AUTHORITY. 23.
Under the English
Legal Aid scheme it is not open for me to challenge the injunction in
the High Court. Apparently,
there is not a high enough chance of success and because of this the
right to justice has been denied to me.
I cannot afford to privately fund or otherwise initiate
litigation. All I can do is
wait for another Committal issue, when Legal Aid is available.
Unfortunately, this emergency assistance will not allow a proper
defence on the fundamental issues and is always limited to just that
action, not the root cause. 24.
All of my efforts to
live and work have been based around the unique facilities at Oakwood.
It is the investment of my entire working life that is
threatened. I have not the
resources to relocate and normal commercial funding is not open to me at
this time. 25.
This matter must be
resolved in order that I may continue and work to be able to live -
which is my basic human right. 26.
I make this Solemn
Declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue
of the provisions of the statutory Declarations Act 1835 and I attach
copies of the enforcement notice and appeal site plans cited as
exhibits.
Declared
by the above named
. at
in the County of East
Sussex this
.. day of May
1997
Before
me,
..
.............. Solicitor,
Commissioner of Oaths
THIS SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS COUNCIL'S UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR - With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents. *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
|
| A-Z Index | Site Map | Contact Us | Help |
|
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited. |
